That is what the justice system is for... to adjudicate and punish those that break the law. Google is just for nosy people that think they can avoid anyone that will ever commit a crime and never get sick because they can diagnose every sneeze they ever have.

I suspect there's quite a lot of people who are running questionable schemes requesting removal of information that would show their bullshit schemes as bullshit schemes and them as bullshit peddlers.

say, you're actively committing fraud, by claiming that you're a doctor of alien sciences or some bullshit like that. should you be able to remove all criticism about your "alien artifact healing technology" or not?

should some random dude be able to remove _my_ information that I _want_ to be available?

say, you're actively committing fraud, by claiming that you're a doctor of alien sciences or some bullshit like that. should you be able to remove all criticism about your "alien artifact healing technology" or not?

should some random dude be able to remove _my_ information that I _want_ to be available?

To the first, I don't believe that is the kind of information Google is required to remove. To the second, Google requires verification of ID as part of the removal process.

Don't get me wrong, I think asking search engines to forget publically available data is censorship, and it seems like it must cost Google quite a bit to comply with such requirements. Still, let's at least criticize this development for what it is, not for what it might be in bizarro-world.

"should some random dude be able to remove _my_ information that I _want_ to be available?"

I don't know if you were implying otherwise, but it's probably worth making it explicitly clear that they can't easily do so, because Google require proof of ID to honour a request.

I think you've missed the point here. If I post information explaining why Mr X shouldn't be trusted that's my information. Mr X can request Google to remove my site from their index by providing proof that he is Mr X. At no point does Google have to talk to me about it.

The whole scheme provides an extra-legal mechanism to censor the web. Its an appalling overreach of secrecy law and needs to be removed forthwith.

"I think you've missed the point here. If I post information explaining why Mr X shouldn't be trusted that's my information. Mr X can request Google to remove my site from their index by providing proof that he is Mr X. At no point does Google have to talk to me about it."

It depends what exactly you post. If you're just posting an opinion piece then yes that's your information. If you start posting his address, phone number and so forth then you're posting his personal data and that's what he can have remov

Does uploading a coroner's report into the death of a "patient" who purchased fake medicine count as personal?

I never post anything I wouldn't be prepared to defend in court, but it doesn't stop the cease and desist letters, DDoS and other tactics (threats of harm). This gives people another tool to try and hide the truth.

I can only speak for the UK's Data Protection Act, but I'd assume it's the same elsewhere in Europe. Under the UK's implementation of the European Data Protection Directive dead people aren't covered by the act.

I've posted a few times before but it sounds like you're in a situation where this information is useful to you so I'll repeat this again as you may find it helpful.

The right to be forgotten is not actually law yet, the press has been misreporting the whole situation regarding the Gonzalez case. The

I have received cease and desist letter from scammers, one case the scammer was going after me because they didn't like a coroners report that criticised them for selling fake medicine to the now deceased victim. These people will never take me to court where evidence would be examined, now thanks to the EU they don't have to.

In order to get stuff removed you have to show that it meets the EU's criteria of being irrelevant, inaccurate or out of date. It seems like nothing in your example would meet those criteria, so would not be removed. Clearly any on-going activity is relevant and up to date. Note also that the EU court was talking in legal terms, not the common or dictionary definition of those words so the meaning is a bit narrower.

and the do no evil part of that is called rehabilitation of offenders. Most (if not all) EU countries have laws that state you do not need to inform anyone of a past crime after a certain amount of time - this means that they should not affect your employment prospects. There are obvious exceptions to this for sexual offences against the vulnerable.
We like to think that once you serve your sentence your debt is paid.

So basically you are arguing that illegal requests should be honored, or Google is simply being evil, correct?

Just because most (if not all) EU countries have laws as you stated, I still see no relevance to them why Google should remove all Apple Inc search results because Microsoft requested it (and the reverse), nor do I see any relevance to those laws regarding Google removing search results about me when some random smuck requested it and that info has nothing to do with mr random smuck.

Otherwise history is going to look very different in the near future. Holocaust? Sorry, no records available. Khmer Rouge? Never happened.

You do realize that those events are documented by first hand accounts and historians right? How is being erased from Google's databases close to erasing the memories of witnesses or even the ability of historians to publish books? Not even close sorry.

Our prior actions do, and should, affect our future. Having paid ones debt to society is not the same as suddenly becoming trustworthy just because our past can be hidden...

People say this shit all of the time then something happens to them or they get sick or something. Then they suddenly become the one exception to the rule. What you saying is more of the same kind of talk that control freaks say that think that they contr

Otherwise history is going to look very different in the near future. Holocaust? Sorry, no records available. Khmer Rouge? Never happened.

You do realize that those events are documented by first hand accounts and historians right? How is being erased from Google's databases close to erasing the memories of witnesses or even the ability of historians to publish books? Not even close sorry.

As far as the internet is concerned, if you don't appear on Google, you don't exist [icaew.com]. Practically speaking, a lot of people doing research today start with a quick google search. If they don't get any results, they are likely to assume the subject doesn't exist/never happened.

My point is, if this information is freely available on the web, it is much harder to deny the truth. Make this information disappear, and it is much easier to brainwash the public into believing it is a lie.

For sure the internet makes the information flow easily, but it also makes disinformation flow easily. It seems to me that from what we have seen in recent history, the internet also makes much easier to deny the truth or to cling on on fringe theories. I am sure that people denying the Holocaust find plenty of websites and forums on which they can learn about the "hidden truth" and reinforce their beliefs. I am also sure that you will find much more rewriting of history happening on websites rather than on

That is assuming both sides are equally fervent and vocal in their beliefs, which is rarely the case.

Usually you have one side with documents/evidence, and opposing them another side without documents/evidence who have nothing more than a fervent belief that there is a conspiracy, the evidence is forged, that they are being lied to etc despite all evidence to the contrary. Of the two sides, which one do you think is more likely to petition Google for the removal of information from their search engine?

The internet is full of disinformation and lies, just as well! Quite a bit of internet information is free...a ton of it is free for a reason, it is untrue.

I agree. However, by the same token the internet is also full of information that is true, that is being suppressed and/or information that is not available through official channels. There is a reason why most if not all governments maintain control of mass media and countries such as China actively try to filter the internet. Looking for information

in days of old - you'd have to manually search an unindexed and massive collection of newspapers on microfiche to locate news articles about a crime that was "expunged" by the rehabilitation of offenders act. these days 10 seconds of google can turn them all up. There is no suddenly in the act, there's a sliding scale based upon how long the sentence was. If you're jailed for 4 years or more the conviction does not become non-disclosable.
Failing to employ someone in there 40s because they had a shoplifting

I don't know about EU countries other than the UK, but the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act isn't quite/that/ wide. The time limit is different for different crimes (immediate for police cautions, never for prison sentences over 30 months - so you can certainly forget about having your conviction for mass murder spent). It doesn't require old records or publications to be destroyed. It doesn't require that no-one ever mention it, instead you can be sued for defamation if you do it maliciously (and, AIUI, yo

Permit me to inform you of my desire of having a terrible wrong righted! I am quite aware that my message will come to you as a surprise because it is indeed very strange for someone you have not met before to contact you in this regard.

l am Judy Robert the only daughter of late Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Robert. My father was a very wealthy cocoa merchant in Abidjan here, the economic capital of Ivory Coast, he was poisoned to death by his only brother (My Uncle) and his business associates on one of their business meeting. My mother died on the 15th June 1991 and my father took me so special because l am motherless.

Before the death of my father on 21st December 2008 in a private hospital here in Abidjan, he secretly called me on his bedside, when I sat down to listen to him, he started crying, when I asked him why?

(1) He complained that I am too young to be managing my life with no one to take care of me,(2)That I have not finished my university education as he planned for me, he revealed to me that he has a sum of US$6.5,000,000.00(Six Million Five Hundred Thousand United State Dollars) left in a security company here in Abidjan, that he used my name as the only daughter for his next of kin in deposit of the funds in the box.

He also explained to me that it was because of this wealth that he was poisoned by his only brother (My Uncle) and his business associates, that l should stay away from them as they are evil he warned me seriously not associate with his brother that is my uncle, that I should seek for a God fearing foreign partner in a country of my choice where l will transfer this money and use it for proper investment purpose. Unfortunately, as I was attempting to contact people to aid in retrieving my inheritance, my father's only brother (My Uncle) and his business associates on one of their business meeting decided to besmirch my character and called me a scammer. Now I show up in all search results as a scammer and have no sane hope of achieving my rightful inheritance.Dear, I am honorably seeking your assistance in the following ways:(1) To help me by removing these bad search results about myself.(2) To help me by giving search results advising me to invest the money in a good business. Like Real estate or Hotel Business.(3) To giving search results on how to make arrangement for me to come over to your country to further my education and also to secure a resident permit in your country.

Moreover, Dear I am willing to offer you 15% of the total sum as compensation for your effort/ input after the successful removal of this bad search result to you. Furthermore, please indicate your options towards assisting me as I believe that this transaction would be conclude within seven (7) days you signify your interest to assist me. Email me on my email address for me to send more details to you.judyrobert1759@gmail.ComAnticipating hearing from you urgently.Thanks and God bless.Yours Sincerely,Judy Robert

Irrelevant to the point that the OP basically asked why Google didn't just delete everything requested, since I'm pretty sure public record is not defined as "only things that someone didn't request Google remove links to".

"Is it evil to refuse to delete information about a person's public comments or valid criminal record?"

That depends on the definition of valid doesn't it? Many countries believe in rehabilitation and it's not uncommon for criminal convictions to not have to be declared after a certain period of time.

In the case of Mr Gonzales which triggered all this he was asking for removal of a record of bad credit that even credit reference agencies would no longer legally be allowed to use because it was deemed to be n

In most European countries a person's criminal record is not public knowledge. Parts of it may be available on request to certain people for certain reasons, but you can't just log in to some web site and type in a name to get a full run-down of their convictions. Furthermore convictions can be considered "spent", after which they are no longer reported when making requests. If someone is convicted of shop lifting at 16 it is usually spent at 18, so a childhood mistake doesn't blight the rest of their life

If someone writes about a person who raped or murdered and was convicted for it, and that person is later released, does that mean that ex-convict has the right to have that writing buried? I'd say not. Rehabilitation is fine, but that doesn't mean they have to be forgiven or that it needs to be suppressed.

Anyway, I said public information. You can debate what that means or what ends up as something that rightfully should be removed, but it's irrelevant to my comment, since the point was that the OP was

If someone writes about a person who raped or murdered and was convicted for it, and that person is later released, does that mean that ex-convict has the right to have that writing buried?

No, but it's a question of public interest. If the crime is shoplifting there isn't much public interest and the newspaper report will soon be forgotten, hidden away in an archive somewhere. If the crime is greater and publicized a lot at the time it won't be forgotten, obviously, as there is clearly more public interest.

No, but it's a question of public interest. If the crime is shoplifting there isn't much public interest and the newspaper report will soon be forgotten, hidden away in an archive somewhere. If the crime is greater and publicized a lot at the time it won't be forgotten, obviously, as there is clearly more public interest.

But if there isn't a specific law differentiating the two, it's just the arbitrary whims of some judge deciding what's censorship and what isn't. Which just seems wrong to me. At least if you are going to put censorship into law, codify it and don't rely on some indescribable common law precedent based on what the mood of a public official that day. Personally I think if it's not illegal to print in a news article it shouldn't be illegal to put on the web.

Most crimes under the age of 18 are sealed and generally not reported by name by the media in the US, as well. Focusing on that is a straw man, anyway, since that's really not the issue here - and besides that Google ALREADY has a policy (and some US states have laws) of removing private information on minors.

I'd be willing to bet of the 41,000+ requests referenced by the article few if any were for removing sealed juvenile records. The other 99.9% of the cases is the relevant discussion.

If Google is all about doing no evil and playing nice, why wouldn't they delete the information?

Actually, making truthful information readily accessible to the public is a public good. At the expense of the particular individual under scrutiny perhaps, but broadly speaking it is a public good.

A scam artist would love to hide evidence of his past scams. OTOH his past victims/potential victims would probably insist the information be broadcasted far and wide.A paedophile would love to hide the fact that he abused children from his new neighbours. His new neighbours however would probably be very upset a

It has long been known that what you post online, for all the world to see, is YOUR responsiblity.

Google is ignorant in a lot of realms, and I criticize them regularly. But one thing they DO get right (about the only thing....) is search. They are NOT reponsible for whatever is posted by whoever about whoever.

Don't like what A said about B? Take it up with A. Google had nothing to do with it. All they did was report that A said X about B. Capiche?

You're missing two points -a) "It has long been known..." - yes, it has long been known you need to be careful about what you put on-line. But what you're missing is that we learnt this the hard way - by some people first making that mistake; and now maybe finding that they can't rid themselves of it. That _future_ people have that knowledge is no help for those that did fall into the trap before they knew it would be one. Secondly, and more importantly, in my youth I certainly said things I would no longer support today - but if my "opponents" dig out one such story and ensure that it gets linked to a lot (negative SEO), it will stay near the top of the search results - no matter, what I would say today or even have said for the past 10-15 years. Basically, it would mean that you shouldn't say anything in public any more, unless you're willing to stick with that statement forever and never change your mind (even if you learnt more that WOULD make you change your mind).

b) "All they did was report that A said X about B" - correct - but in the case of the guy in spain who brought up the lawsuit in the first place, there is also an information asymmetry at work against you or anyone else. Papers need to publish certain information (like court notices), but there is no legal requirement to publish that the initial problem situation has long been resolved. Therefore the google search results will find "A is in trouble" (10 years ago), but not necessarily "A got out of trouble and got his life back together again" (8 years ago). Therefore the google search results will only show the problem - not that the problem got solved. A look in the bailiffs office record would also show that the problem is past - basically, the record from 10 years ago would carry information that it got resolved 8 years ago; and would show no further issues. With the newspaper's editing - the original article will not be updated; so either google's search finds the resolution of the problem 8 years ago and ranks it accordingly; or it will only give you the link to the original now outdated article with no information about whether the problem has been resolved and when.

By being able to get old search results removed if they're outdated, you don't remove your original record - it would still be visible at the bailiff's office (or for a paedophile example in police records - which are the only source you SHOULD use as a definitive reference) - so "B" can't get out of his responsibilities; B can only influence the filter bubble that is in the google search results.

By being able to get old search results removed if they're outdated, you don't remove your original record - it would still be visible at the bailiff's office (or for a paedophile example in police records - which are the only source you SHOULD use as a definitive reference) - so "B" can't get out of his responsibilities; B can only influence the filter bubble that is in the google search results.

Why shouldn't police records be searchable? Why can't Google allow them to be searched? What you're saying is th

You probably don't want to be misquoted - or quoted completely out of context - why should anyone else be?

I'm not sure about where you are, but police records aren't public in most places - but they are available for relevant searches; i.e. to find out whether someone is a sex-offender before allowing them to work with children, you consult police records - and inside of that context that is perfectly legitimate - and police records are the only source you should trust for this purpose, too.

First off, many aren't.
Why should they be, in general? Police actions should be documented for public audit to ensure against police abuses, certainly. And if someone was arrested, charged, and ultimately convicted of a crime, that should be a matter of public record.

But why should I have access to the records on loads of people who are arrested every day and ultimately not convicted -- many of them not even charged? I'm not saying that there might not be some reason to access them (e.g., to establis

I find your view of the world quite naive. I am not convinced that the solution requested by the European Court the best is, but it's a step in the right direction.

Well, no, it's a step in the wrong direction. The plebes have seen that the wealthy have no accountability, so they're doing their best to get the same deal. Problem is, the system only works when people are held accountable for their actions. This is very much a massive step towards a darker future.

Example. The local phone company by default posts your name and address to a public directory when you get phone service. This is then replicated to 411.com and whitepages.com and a dozen other sites. I got the local phone company to take it down (which was a HUGE hassle), but it is still mirrored all over the net. It's been 5 years and you can still get my phone number and address by Googling my name even though I never put it up there.

The law says that bankruptcies cannot be reported on credit reports or kept in banking records used to make loan decisions after a certain period of time. The law also says that criminal convictions that are "spent" after a certain time do not need to be reported to employers, and employers are now allowed to employ private agencies to dig that kind of information up.

Google is a business. It must abide by the law. Sometimes search results unintentionally circumvent it. While banks and employers have certain

is how the "Right to be Forgotten" started.
"Google v González" - Ok, so, this dude petitions to have his name struck from all internet search records because when his name is searched, it turns up records of a previous debt issue where he owed money, and as a result, the government forced sale of his property.
He wanted to be removed from the search!
What's the result? Precedent set, law passed, and now this fool is known notoriously as the guy who owed money and had forced property sale and whined about it to try to hide history all the way to the supreme court. All of this information is, of course, fully searchable.
Good job González.

Now he has another problem attached to his name, 1) it's rare anyone would have searched for his name for any reason whatsoever, and 2) now people will see him as this big trouble maker and want to avoid doing business with him in any way lest they also be dragged up through to the higher EU courts..
Would you rather be known as a potential hot potato, or have a 15 year old (or whatever it was) financial issue that can very obviously be proven to be no longer the case?

It doesn't matter in his case - if he wants to run a business, he might not even get a chance to prove that the issue is outdated, if it still ranks highly in google searches.

In his position it was probably the choice between a rock and a hard place - without the court case, he still would have trouble with his business; now with that case to his name, you might hope it's a little less of a problem (again - the news reports now mentioning his name all also list that it's about skewed search results regard

It doesn't matter in his case - if he wants to run a business, he might not even get a chance to prove that the issue is outdated, if it still ranks highly in google searches.

On the other hand, I think it would be highly unadviseable to do business with bank that bases its decision simply on a search result page, without even investigating *when* did the event referenced happen? To me, this sounds like very lazy practice and poor judgement and is going to bring problems down the line.Better to ask for money loan from a bank that does proper investigations.

I believe his problems weren't with banks, but rather potential customers for his business - who just looked at his background to see what kind of person they're dealing with.

Banks do have systems of their own that use data that is also not for public consumption to determine whether or not to lend you money - here the google search wouldn't have been a problem; as his credit record would have had that information on it either way.

He must have realized that there was no hope for himself, but he has managed to effect a change that helps other people in a similar position. How is it any different to the woman who has an abortion, is harassed and then campaigns for more privacy to protect other women? Sometimes someone has to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

That is regulated, that's the point. Credit reference agencies can only use this data going back between about 5 and 8 years depending on European jurisdiction in question (7 years in the UK).

The question is why Google should be given an exemption that credit reference agencies are not - the ability to allow decisions to be made on data that is, under current law, deemed to be no longer relevant.

I think there's a fair argument for search engine exemption but it has to be well thought through - if a search e

The question is why Google should be given an exemption that credit reference agencies are not - the ability to allow decisions to be made on data that is, under current law, deemed to be no longer relevant.

"Ability to allow", if it means anything, isn't the same as "actually doing".

To go all AK Marc for a moment, imagine you were bankrupted, and I was one of your creditors. You dragged my business down with you. So I took a job as a teller at the bank.

...because if you truly were a "villain", you'd not want to call attention to yourself, and by asking for deletion of your "data" - you're almost certainly in the limelight of discovery.

Besides, as almost every Slashdotter knows, your data won't be completely gone, in fact - most of it will be here and there forever. WayBackMachine anyone? Not to mention the numerous dark corners of the net Google don't have any control over, have your data too.

Instead of whitewashing history, how about promoting critical thinking, research, and debating skills so people can get the full picture? People will eventually get used to the idea that you can't take everything on the Internet at face value, without hiding any content or throwing any factual information down the memory hole. It may take a few generations, but as the old guard dies and is replaced by the new, people will learn to better handle what they read online.

I'm amazed that an interesting and fair article has a conclusion - and a headline - that insinuates this is Google's fault!
I know that Google-bashing is all the rage right now (Looks like Microsoft's payments to Burson Marstellar weren't entirely wasted), but Google neither asked for this, nor wants it - neither the responsibility, nor the work and expense.
This ridiculous ruling by the EU - like blaming a map-maker for accidents, because they published a map indicating accident black spots - has put Goo

There have been several tools to search multiple search engines at once and aggregate the results.

How about a multiple search over different countries Googles and just show the differences?
That would immediately show specifically what someone wants to hide.

For instance, I could do a search on somneone in Spain and would immediately see what financial instabilities do not show up here.
Someone in China could look Chinese historical events and immediately have them pointed out.

This is in reply to your recent requst to have all references to you removed from our search results. We would be happy to comply and remove references to this minor embarrasement from your distant past.